In the absence of credible witness support, mere reliance on the investigating officer's statements does not constitute sufficient evidence for conviction under Section 498A IPC.

JUDGMENT :

GITA GOPI, J.

1. Four appellants are the original accused in Sessions Case no.51 of 2005 who were tried for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 306 and 114 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (IPC) and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The conviction was for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC read with Section 114 of IPC, whereby all the accused were ordered to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, three months simple imprisonment.

2. Report of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siddhpur has been forwarded by the In-charge Sessions Judge, Patan. According to the report, death of appellant no.1 – Rameshbhai Prabhudas Patel has been verified by the ASI of Kakoshi Police Station who has obtained a copy of the death certificate and has recorded the statement and accordingly, on verification, it was found that the appellant no.1 had expired on 22.11.2013 and as per the statement, there are no legal heirs of Rameshbhai Prabhudas Patel. In view of the report and the copy of the death certificate, the case of appellant no.1 is ordered to be abated.

3. Mr. Indravadan Parmar, learned advocate for the appellants no.2 to 4 has submitted that inspite of the fact that all the witnesses who are family members of the deceased–Nayanaben had not supported the prosecution case, the learned Trial Court Judge merely on the evidence of PW6 - Investigating Officer has passed the judgment of conviction under Section 498A of the IPC, while at the same time, has disbelieved the case under Section 3 06 of IPC and even the case under the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned advocate Mr. Parmar thus submitted that if the case under the Dowry Prohibition Act is not believed, then, there would not be any case under Section 498A of the IPC and the learned Trial Court Judge was required to acquit all the accused. Advocate Mr. Parmar further submitted that there cannot be any reliance on the evidence of the investigating officer when the same statements are not affirmed by the persons who had given the statement. Advocate Mr. Parmar has submitted that the complaint would have been immediately filed in the fist of anger noting the suicide of the sister, but the complainant himself has not supported any case of harassment or cruelty or of any dowry harassment, and equally, the learned Trial Court Judge has not believed the case under the Dowry Prohibition Act of any demand for money. Advocate Mr. Parmar has submitted that whatever had been given to the deceased was from her parents house, was received by the deceased herself. Kisan Vikas Patra which were put in evidence at Exhs.40 to 47 are in the joint name of both the husband and wife and the evidence on record shows that the husband and wife both with the daughter were staying separately from the parents and further submitted that marriage span is beyond seven years and thus, the provision of Section 113A of the EVIDENCE ACT would not get attracted in the present matter and rightly, the learned Trial Court has also observed that the marriage span has not been proved and the circumstances and the evidence on record proves that the marriage period was beyond seven years. Advocate Mr. Parmar has submitted that not a single witness of the family of the deceased have supported the prosecution case and when there would not be any legal evidence to convict the accused persons under Section 498A of the IPC. The FIR has been relied upon, but cannot be considered as substan